Posted on 12/11/2006 4:30:30 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Was it a planned one-two punch? On Saturday, New York Times columnist Frank Rich declared that "we have lost in Iraq." Today, in The Time Is Now, his Times colleague Bob Herbert flatly calls for surrender. No conditions, no time-table. As Herbert starkly puts it: "it is time to pull the troops out of harm’s way."
Herbert says "it is wrong to continue sending fresh bodies after those already lost." He raises the "moral question" of justifying "the lives that will be lost between now and the final day of our departure." But Herbert ignores another looming moral question: the lives that will be lost if we hastily retreat.
We flinch at the awful news of perhaps 100 Iraqi civilians killed every day. In the cold calculation of war, that makes for some tens of thousands per year. As bad as that is, it could be much, much worse. Does Herbert forget the consequences for innocent civilians the last time the US took advice like his and surrendered? Millions died in Vietnam and Cambodia. Does Herbert doubt that a similar bloodbath could occur in Iraq?
There is also the question of the loss of American lives at home. Chief Iraqi government spokesman Ali Aldabbagh had this to say when I interviewed him recently in Baghdad:
"On 9/11, America was attacked by men coming from Afghanistan. If the US were to hastily withdraw from Iraq, future 9/11s could be launched by men coming from Iraq." In other words, an Iraq abandoned to winds of terror would surely become a launching pad for attacks against the United States.
Turning on the news and learning of the deaths of our brave American troops is excruciating. But as awful as it is, we cannot lose sight of the fact that things could, and almost surely would, become much worse if we were to take Herbert's advice and abruptly leave. Abandoning Iraq to a cruel fate while exposing America to an Iraq turned Al Qaeda haven is no solution. It is the opposite of the kind of moral response Herbert claims to seek.
Finkelstein recently returned from Iraq. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
Bob Herbert surrender-now ping to Today show list.
'If we've lost Herbert, we've lost Morningside Heights.'
This guy is mighty free with other peoples' kids ain't he?
View Buchanan video here.
We need to focus on the right question.
The question is not if we can win or lose, or if we ARE winning or losing.
There is only one question that needs to be answered: Is the goal worth American lives. If we have an interest in the outcome, if today the choice to fight is the correct choice for our nation, then we need to focus on how to win, not how to quit.
If the answer is that there is nothing WORTH doing (rather than being "nothing we CAN do"), then we should start pulling out today, because THAT would be the meaningless sacrifice of our troops.
We don't want a nation that chooses it's course of action based on what it can't do, rather than what needs to be done. Many times in our history the thing that needed to be done seemed impossible -- the revolutionary war, World War 2, landing a man on the moon, for example.
If we had given in to the restriction of what seemed possible, we'd be a failed, second-rate nation today, not the shining beacon and only hope for the world against the forces of evil.
So to the surrender monkeys I say, you have failed. We will not give in to pessimism, self-doubt, and the tyranny of low expectations. The Iraq Surrender Group's report of what we can do is flawed precisely because it focused on what they thought was possible, rather than what was necessary.
Let us now rejoin the effort to do what is necessary, to trust in Divine Providence for the strength we need to accomplish the impposible, to acheive what is right, to finish the tasks set before us.
The Vietnam model still reverberates through our history. Once again, Democrats are lining up to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
|
Excellent: thanks for posting.
;) Herbert is a Dunce.
To demean highly skilled and committed soldiers as just fresh bodies is disgusting.
The harms way these fine young folks have been in, is trying the suit this (others) idiot(s) need to fight a PC war. The rules of engagement have placed many more in harms way than was every necessary.
Sounds scary enough, but how accurate is it? This summer, another 9/11 scale attack was thwarted by British and U.S. authorities. The attacks was to be launched from Britian, and was organized by Pakistani Britons. What would make Iraq a more attractive location to launch an attack from than the UK? What would make Iraq a more attractive location to train for an attack than Pakistan? 9/11 itself was launched by mostly Saudi men who trained in the U.S. and Afghanistan. Western Iraq is neither remote enough nor close enough to be an effective launchpad for a 9/11 attack.
The Sunni tribes are using AQ as a means to an end, plain and simple. They're otherwise quite xenophobic, and have no desire to house foreign terrorists once they've done their job.
There are dire and serious consequences for failure in Iraq, but this one is overstated and mostly inaccurate.
As you point out, the planned attack from the UK was thwarted. Obviously it is much more difficult to plan attacks from within a western country than from a future Iraq where Al Qaeda would roam free.
The question is not if we can win or lose, or if we ARE winning or losing.
I believe that we are winning.
If we were not winning, the soclaiasts[Democrats],main stream media and other American haters, and those who wish to see islam rule the world would have not be and have been in full attack mode to undermine our efforts.
Sure, and the planned attack launched from the U.S. was not.
Iraq is not terribly remote a place, compared to Pakistan or Afghanistan. Or Somalia, Sudan, South Africa, Indonesia, or any number of places that AQ can set up a quiet base and plan attacks. There's far too many eyes on that part of the world, and it's very accessible to our special operations guys, naval air power, or cruise missiles. The great value Anbar has to AQ now is in that the local Sunnis tolerate their presence because they want us out. Those tribes could turn on AQ in a heartbeat, and they know it.
And liberals are whining. The Roach Motel is branching out :
The King of Saudi Arabia warns that the entire ME is ready to explode ?
Six Gulf nations vow to take action against Iranian nuclear ambitions ?
Lebanon teetering on the brink of Syrian led coup ?
Iraqi Parliament close to dumping Maliki ?
BUMP
All self involved money making idiots who can't see five inches in front of their face. But hey, when your pulling in 7 figures who cares if your getting it wrong when all your adoring fans think you've got it right.
Fact: The MSM has nothing to do with NEWS
Fact: The MSM are a tightly coupled network of marketing firms
Fact: The MSMs primary responsiblity is to their largest client, the DNC
Fact: Liberals belly laugh every time a conservative crys "BIAS!"
Fact: Marketing firms by their nature are the exact opposite of objective
Fact: Without the pretense of objectivity, the concept of BIAS can not exist, it's not expected
Fact: There is no BIAS in the MSM
Fact: The marketing firm of New, York and Times is part of the parent Main, Stream and Media
Best Regards, Eddie01
GMTA - note third paragraph of posted article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
